[fiat_tarun]

Thank you for this detailed post, however would like to add a few points...

Originally Posted by superguy282

...
3. Rating a car according to the data

All these numbers seem really confusing and non-sensical to the average Joe. To simplify this, a fairly simple 0-5 star rating scale has been determined.

Each of the stars represent the following:

0 Star Safety : Meets Government safety norms and can be sold legally, However lacks critical modern safety features.

1 Star Safety : Marginal Crash protection and almost no crash avoidance technologies.

2 Star Safety : Nominal Crash protection but lacks crash avoidance technology.

3 Star Safety : Average Crash Protection but isn't equipped with latest avoidance features.

4 Star Safety : Good Crash protection and additional crash avoidance features are present.

5 Star Safety : Excellent Crash Protection and comprehensive and robust crash avoidance features are present.

As a bhpian has already mentioned, the above star rating is for the EUNCAP. GNCAP only tests for frontal impact and there is no weightage for crash avoidance technology other than ABS. Starting from 2022, GNCAP is going to make the test stricter where more active safety technologies will be given points. The current test purely tests restraint performance (seat belts), the structure and the front airbag effectiveness.

--Passive Safety vs. Active safety/Crash Avoidance--

In many of the various posts I saw, most of them had dismissed features such as ESP, Hill-Hold Control, Traction Control, Brake Assists, ISOFIX mounts, Seat Belt Reminders or even Speed alerts to be useless in GNCAP crash ratings. The posts above have enough to prove them wrong.

Counter-Argument/T & C :
-Gimmicky features may be advertised as Safety Features in a few cars. Spot them beforehand.

Conclusion
Apart from Passive safety (Strong Structure/Crumple Zones), Active Safety and Crash Avoidance Tech contribute in improving GNCAP results.

In the current GNCAP test, active safety technology will not improve your score. ABS is legislated and hence is a standard fitment on all vehicles now. Going forward from 2022, it will play a role in the results - Link

And about the ABS part, I'm not exactly sure if 4-Channel ABS is standard across cars. As there exist cheaper alternatives that manufacturers could implement.(Types of ABS)

But it might be true that 4 channel ABS is available in most cars.

ABS homologation requirements can be met only with 4 channel ABS and hence all our cars today have this system. It's only for 2 wheelers where a single channel ABS system has been approved, where only the front wheel has ABS.

If anyone is interested, here is a detailed explanation on how the GNCAP test's are conducted - Link

[superguy282]

Originally Posted by RR96

I am a bit skeptical about this point. Are you mentioning this as a misconception or suggesting that heavier car is more safer. Heavier cars Scorpio ( when tested first ) scored cheaply in GNCAP tests suggesting greater injuries to passengers. The heavier cars in your list which are safer maybe safer according to NCAP scores too. I am not sure about this but need opinion from others about this.

You are exactly right! Which is why I have quoted just below that point, the following:-

Counter Argument/T & C :
-Simply tossing Sand bags in your car or adding a big heavy Chrome bullbar isn't going to make it safer. The entire structure has to be designed as one for it to dissipate the crash energy.
-Older cars such as the Scorpio (0 star) are definitely UNSAFE compared to newer smaller cars having a higher safety rating. The Scorpio may not be mangled as much as the smaller car it's crashed with, but the occupants will surely have much, much more fatal injuries that of those in the smaller car with modern safety tech.

Originally Posted by fiat_tarun

Thank you for this detailed post, however would like to add a few points...
As a bhpian has already mentioned, the above star rating is for the EUNCAP.

Yes, you are correct however, regardless of the NCAP, the meaning of the stars remain the same, even though the criteria for achieving that particular star will differ.

Starting from 2022, GNCAP is going to make the test stricter where more active safety technologies will be given points. The current test purely tests restraint performance (seat belts), the structure and the front airbag effectiveness.

Whilst the article you have provided is true, the current GNCAP does test features such as ISOFIX and Seat Belt Reminders. I had considered that point in view of the Thar test and I feel it would be appropriate as all future tests will be conducted in the same way. Glad to see they're going to consider more active safety features!

ABS homologation requirements can be met only with 4 channel ABS and hence all our cars today have this system. It's only for 2 wheelers where a single channel ABS system has been approved, where only the front wheel has ABS.

I did not know this! Thank you for your information.

[fiat_tarun]

Originally Posted by superguy282

...


Yes, you are correct however, regardless of the NCAP, the meaning of the stars remain the same, even though the criteria for achieving that particular star will differ.

....

Only the crash related parts will apply for GNCAP. For instance all the 5 star rated cars like the Nexon (pre facelift), XUV300 & Altroz have no crash avoidance technology apart from ABS which is anyway standard.

[superguy282]

Originally Posted by fiat_tarun

Only the crash related parts will apply for GNCAP. For instance all the 5 star rated cars like the Nexon (pre facelift), XUV300 & Altroz have no crash avoidance technology apart from ABS which is anyway standard.

Oh, sorry I misunderstood your earlier post. Yes you are correct. I have requested necessary changes.

However, Nexon,XUV300 and Altroz do get ESP, Traction Control, Roll over mitigation, hill hold control etc. that are in fact crash avoidance features, as they help the person control the car better. Whether or not GNCAP considered them at that time, they do help in safety.

[Jeroen]

Thanks for a very interesting thread and some great insights.

It appears as the rating criteria are (partly) related to available technology and to a lesser extend current legislation. Which would suggest you can’t compare say a five year old car with a four star rating against a new car with a four star rating? So effectively a floating or at least a relative scale.

Is my understanding correct? Is that any different in some of the other crash standards. Does anybody use more absolute criteria?

Thanks
Jeroen

[RR96]

Originally Posted by superguy282

Misconceptions about GNCAP

Now this brings us to an important point:
- If the variant having the minimum safety feature is tested, would higher variants having additional safety features increase the crash rating?
...
Unless the structure of the higher variants is altered, the structural integrity of the lower variants will be applicable to the higher variants as well.
For e.g GTX+ model of Kia Seltos will still have it's structural integrity rated as Unstable even if the crash rating increases due to additional safety features.

This very much true. Many people including BHPians and my Uncle who had bought the Seltos before the GNCAP results were released believed it to be safe and cannot accept that it scored only 3 stars. I don't know from where this news spread ( maybe from YouTube videos ) but many among general public now have a belief that if Seltos with higher varients having side airbags would score 5 stars. But it is a very foolish thought considering the fact that how much impact can a side airbag have when frontal collision takes place.

[superguy282]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Thanks for a very interesting thread and some great insights.

It appears as the rating criteria are (partly) related to available technology and to a lesser extend current legislation. Which would suggest you can’t compare say a five year old car with a four star rating against a new car with a four star rating? So effectively a floating or at least a relative scale.
Is my understanding correct? Is that any different in some of the other crash standards. Does anybody use more absolute criteria?
Thanks
Jeroen

Yes that is correct. An older car with a five star rating is inferior to a newer car with a five star rating. The criteria are ever-changing as more and more crash data is accumulated. Which is why absolute criteria cannot be determined for longer periods.

[fiat_tarun]

Originally Posted by superguy282

Oh, sorry I misunderstood your earlier post. Yes you are correct. I have requested necessary changes.

However, Nexon,XUV300 and Altroz do get ESP, Traction Control, Roll over mitigation, hill hold control etc. that are in fact crash avoidance features, as they help the person control the car better. Whether or not GNCAP considered them at that time, they do help in safety.

Yes, no question about the role and effectiveness of ESP. My point was only that it does not factor in the final GNCAP score and star rating.

The pre facelift Nexon did not offer ESP/ ESC on any variant, the XUV300 offers it only on the higher variants and the Altroz also does not offer ESP on any variant. Having said this hats off to TML for making ESP standard on the Nexon facelift.

[charanreddy]

Thank you for an informative article. This explain many mis-conceptions that been the source of many debates on this forum itself.

My takeaway : We need all the help we can get inaddition to being alert and responsible on the road. So choose the best (or atleast an acceptable level )of protection there is. period.

[superguy282]

Originally Posted by RR96

This very much true. Many people including BHPians and my Uncle who had bought the Seltos before the GNCAP results were released believed it to be safe and cannot accept that it scored only 3 stars. I don't know from where this news spread (maybe from YouTube videos) but many among general public now have a belief that if Seltos with higher varients having side airbags would score 5 stars. But it is a very foolish thought considering the fact that how much impact can a side airbag have when frontal collision takes place.

I would like to correct you here and urge you read my post again. The higher variants of Seltos will provide more safety. It may not be 5 stars worth, however simply due to the additional features present, real world safety is greatly increased. Not just for the Seltos, but for all other cars too.

As for the impact of side airbags in a frontal collision, you are right. It won't affect the rating much. But the who's to say the car would crash only from the front?

[Napalm]

Originally Posted by RR96

I am a bit skeptical about this point. Are you mentioning this as a misconception or suggesting that heavier car is more safer. Heavier cars Scorpio ( when tested first ) scored cheaply in GNCAP tests suggesting greater injuries to passengers. The heavier cars in your list which are safer maybe safer according to NCAP scores too.

+1 to this doubt. Scorpio is a very good example.

IMO, it should not matter if the total weight of a car is more. What matters is if that weight distribution across the vehicle’s structure is such that the vehicle has good outer crumple zones that collapse well to dissipate the impact’s energy in case of a crash. Also the internal body shell that encompasses the cabin where passengers are located, is strong enough to avoid protrusions to the cabin and keeps the passengers safe(from say, engine parts protruding into the cabin, or clutch or brake pedals hitting the drivers legs).

This doesn’t take anything away from the fact that a large SUV will surely be safer than a small hatchback if both have identical GNCAP crash-safety rating.

Another doubt I had is whether the barrier used to crash the vehicles into, in these GNCAP is different for every vehicle, say , a small hatchback and a large SUV. I searched, but I couldn’t get any info about this on the net. The whole idea of simulating the crash/collision with vehicle of identical weight at 50Kph is dependent on the crash-barrier too. It would be great if someone can clarify this.

IMO, the GNCAP ratings should specifically be only called “CRASH-SAFETY ratings” because these ratings only refer to the crash-safety. But safety is a much larger context which includes many things other than crash-safety, like road/highway design, driving with safety-awareness and following vehicular rules/laws like speed-limits, weight-limits for goods-carrier vehicles etc. This might help in reducing the misconceptions many people may have that their safety is guaranteed, because their vehicle has a good GNCAP Rating.

[VVN]

Thank you for this thread Superguy. Much needed and very informative. This should put the many misconceptions on this forum to rest. Especially the ones that blamed GNCAP for being biased for not opting for higher variants even though they were a mere Rs xxx expensive.

While it is very important to educate the masses about safe cars or cars that provide latest technology that could very well be the difference between a broken limb and a lost life, they should also be made aware that rash driving a 5 star rated car is as dangerous as a 0 star vehicle since the speed of the crash matters here and I don't think any one the OEMs have managed to manufacture a vehicle that can survive a 120KMPH+ crash.

A section of our population have started taking note of the latest crash results but unfortunately it has also given rise to the "5 star, safe kuch, kuch nahi hoga" attitude among some.

[superguy282]

Originally Posted by Napalm

IMO, it should not matter if the total weight of a car is more.
---------------------------------
This doesn’t take anything away from the fact that a large SUV will surely be safer than a small hatchback if both have identical GNCAP crash-safety rating.

You are correct on the first point and I have clarified the same. However in an unfortunate event that a hatchback is involved, even if it crashes into a Sedan or a CSUV, the hatchback will be on the receiving end with larger forces acting on it. Which is why cross comparisons should be avoided.

Another doubt I had
---------------------------------
The whole idea of simulating the crash/collision with vehicle of identical weight at 50Kph is dependent on the crash-barrier too. It would be great if someone can clarify this.

I did try to search this too, and it seems there is no change in the weight of the main concrete barrier on which the blue barrier is mounted. The weight of the blue barrier which has a honeycomb structure of varying densities, however isn't specified anywhere. Which is why I think we can't comment on whether it changes,or doesn't change. I did see certain articles indicating that the width of the barrier is 45% of the car's width, But I cannot confirm this. If any BHPian has more info, I request them to post it.

The idea of the simulation was based on EuroNCAP and IIHS's SOPs.(Link). However it seems they are on their way out over there, and the same will follow for GNCAP.

[anb]

Originally Posted by superguy282

--Comparison of Safety scores--

Kia Seltos barely managed to get a 3 star rating. That would make it comparable to a 2 Star Swift/WagonR/Santro yes?

Tigor scored a 4 star rating, so I'm being given a car with safety of a Mahindra Marrazo/Thar because they scored 4 stars right?

Unfortunately, No.

Firstly as I've explained, the crash test simulates a collision with a car of the same weight, which is another reason why cross comparing car ratings between different segments is meaningless.

I am not able to understand this . The force due to the accident is because of change in momentum. Here the car is impacted against a stationary object . Since the velocity of the object is zero, the weight of the object doesn't have an effect on accident since momentum of the stationary object is zero.

[RadixLecti]

My understanding is:

See 'Method of testing', point 1. It states 'Deformable barrier'. This means that the barrier is not stationary once the collision has occurred.

If it's meant to simulate a car of the same weight, I presume that the barrier is adjusted in some way (thickness and/or strength) based on the weight of the car.